Let Ordinary Schmucks Build Their Own Smart Contracts | Social Technology no. 2

Imagine a simple software interface for the blockchain that says something like;

if __________ condition occurs then execute __________ rule for party (a), and __________ rule for party (b).

The ordinary individual can then design a blockchain-based smart contract by inserting boolean operators, (IF, AND, OR, THEN), mathematical formulas, (rules) and website addresses, (sources of data) into the format. It works like Microsoft Excel functions, or like wikiscript. The software then generates the code for the smart contract. Thus, any person in the world can design any type of contract in they want. Contract templates are produced and shared, and they proliferate exponentially.

The point in doing this is to make crypto currencies unpoliceable by governments. Since tens of thousands of possible customizable contracts would be generated by the user base, shared autonomously, and implemented without any central authority having a say in the matter, it would make all kinds of radical uses of the blockchain possible, since users would hide in plain sight. They would be a "needle in a haystack." They would make anything possible, including;

ethnomoney, ethnocontracts, and ethnoeconomies.

It would have all types of uses. It could be used to arrange transactions that are patently discriminatory. It could be used to build assassination markets, to sell drugs, bet on political events, gamble, create private economies, pay workers without reporting their ethnicity, evade taxes, starve the Cathedral of funds, bribe Cathedral members, contribute to their enemies, raise capital for private armies, live in all-white neighborhoods without being noticed, and more and even more.

A Brief Note on Adaptive Fiction

In a monarchy everyone believes the King is God's own personal representative on Earth. Or they believe in the mandate of heaven, or whatever, or some other equivalent idea. Or as Moldbug would say in one of his shortest posts;

"It's been a while since I posted anything really controversial and offensive here, and I have a vague sense that there are some new readers who don't know what they've gotten into. Sure, it's still legal to read UR. But unless you take special precautions, you're leaving a trail of HTTP requests that future regimes may have no trouble at all in tracing to you personally. These may well qualify you for a stint in one of the new inpatient sensitivity facilities. Mellow out, as Jello Biafra put it, or you will pay. Try tapping on the wall - I might hear you."

"In any case. Today I thought it'd be fun to talk about democracy. Unless you are 107 years old and a veteran of the Austrian Landwehr, you probably associate democracy with peace, freedom, progress and prosperity. Since I associate democracy with war, tyranny, destruction and poverty, we certainly have something to talk about."

"My guess is that the conventional view of democracy, which I of course grew up with, is what we can call an adaptive fiction. An adaptive fiction is a misperception of reality that, unlike most such misperceptions, manages to outcompete the truth."

"For example, suppose we somehow became convinced that warm beer is refreshing, whereas cold beer is poisonous. Obviously a fiction, and obviously maladaptive in our society. However, if we imagine a hot country ruled by brewers, who control their serfs by paying them only in lager, which being warm leaves them both tipsy and unrefreshed, hence quite incapable of revolt... you get the idea."

"In this brewers' republic, the warm-beer fiction is what Gaetano Mosca called a political formula. (Mosca's philosophy is nicely summarized in James Burnham's The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom, which at $50 for a used pocket-book is positively a bargain, and about as close as you'll get to Oligarchical Collectivism.)"

"A political formula is a belief that makes the ruled accept their rulers. Since the former tend to outnumber the latter, a political formula is, if not absolutely essential, an excellent way to cut down on your security costs. A political formula is adaptive because the rulers have, obviously, both motive and opportunity to promote it."

"The best example of a political formula is divine-right monarchy - simply because this formula is defunct. Hardly anyone these days believes in the divine right of kings. Since at one time, most everyone did, we have incontrovertible proof that adaptive fictions can exist in human societies. Either divine-right monarchy is a fiction, and people then were systematically deluded. Or kings do rule by the grace of God, and people now are systematically deluded."

To all of this we may add a more in depth explanation;

Power is the opposite of equality.

Consider the extreme totalitarian irony of a system of power that demands you embrace and believe in equality, and you will realize that it does so not because it wants equality, but because when imperium in imperio is exercised, power must conceal itself, and thus, forcing you to verbally state your agreement with equality is forcing you to deny the reality of your slavery. The system is so totalitarian that it cannot even allow the population to think the truth. It wants to be inside your head.

The instant some are given the right to vote their is an incentive to attack the opposing party by bring in new voters. Thus, the vote is expanded to all white males, then all males, then all adults, etc., systematically until the nation is bringing in illegal immigrants from hostile lands to vote for one of the two parties. Democracy does this automatically as a consequence of its incentive structure.

In a democracy where only some have the right to vote only some will be considered equal. The rest will be slaves or house wives. The privatization of redistribution (slavery) will provide parasites with what they need, lessening the demand for public administration of redistribution (welfare states).

If a frontier exists the land to be stolen from the Indians will act as a second form of redistribution that lessens demand for a formal bureaucratic welfare state.

In a democracy where everyone has the right to vote, the system will turn into systemic plunder of all against all. a man with integrity in that system is simply a man who is eaten, rather than eating, and libertarians are just bad brokers.

In a democracy with redistribution there is an incentive to believe that everyone is equal, since it conceals the expropriation of attacked populations (whites).

As legislation grows power does also. Legislation grows because Congress is a market for selling other peoples money, because representative democracy can be thought of a form of anarcho capitalism.

As power grows the need for ideology to pervade every aspect of life does also, since ideology is needed to conceal the exercise of power.

As power (a form of inequality) grows, the need to make people goodspeak their love of equality in struggle sessions does also, since equality is not just the denial of genetic reality, but the denial of their own enslavement.

Most people accept equality not because rejecting it is racist, but because rejecting it constitutes admitting they are not free on some subconscious level.

You believe in equality because you are required to. Most people don't think. Most people can't think. Most—if we're honest—probably shouldn't think. It's just likely to make them miserable.

You believe in equality for the same reason you probably believe in God: context. If you are born in the Middle East you are Muslim. If you are born in India you are probably Hindu, and if you are born in America you are most likely Christian. Location matters.

But so does era. If you are born in 1500 A.D. you believe in divine right monarchy. And if you are born in the current year you believe in equality. After all, if you don't we will destroy you.

What you believe is the consequence of the power structure you serve. Humans conform. So do you.

Aphorisms 22

Leftism is a circular firing squad.

You will eventually be called racist anyway.

Give Em' Pain

Give people pain over the guilt of their wrong doing—over original sin, and your can make the seek salvation through Christ. Coincidentally, you can also make them place money in the offering plate.

Give people pain in the form of huwhite guilt and you can make them turn against their race and invite millions of heathens into their lands.

Give people pain over inequality and you can make them support a dream that can never be realized. Coincidentally, you can also keep bureaucrats and preachers teachers employed forever. After all, a goal that is impossible to realize is the perfect guarantee of employment. No one can measure your success or ever claim that your job is finished.

Torture women and minorities with dreams of oppression—give them pain, and you can convert the into a reliable voting block for the Democrats. Make females into lonely cat ladies and you can make them bitter. Without children they will suffer, hate the huwhite man and vote the way they are supposed to.

Give people pain is basic training—I mean actual pain, and you can forge solders into disciplined warriors.

Torture people with visions of white genocide and you can motivate them to fight for their own self-preservation—against the ethnic cleansing of their race.

Power is built on pain.

Great Forces of Humanity

There are two eras when humans had access to equalizing weapons. One was ancient Greece, where the phalanx was the height of military technology at the time. The second was colonial America, where the Kentucky long riffle was the best weapon available. Both eras were societies where the average man could afford the highest military technology available. They are also the eras that saw the emergence of democracy.

Equal weapons = equal(ish) society.

Birth control freed women from the need for chastity until marriage. Unsurprisingly, the sexual revolution occurred. Now birth rates have collapsed. Groups that have sufficient religious social technology may escape this fate.

Educated women have less children than uneducated women. Male dominated societies educate women less than egalitarian ones. Again unsurprisingly, the world is male dominated. Only a religion that got feminists to breed could end patriarchy, but reality is the last thing women care about.

Nuclear bombs prevented democracy from destroying itself in another World War.

The printing press and the Renaissance.

Movable type and The Enlightenment.

The cotton gin and slavery.

The internet and the alt-right.

Metal armour and feudalism.

Blockchain and ?

CRISPR/Cas9 and ?

Memory sharing technology and ?

AI and ?

Perceptual vs. Concrete Freedom

Concrete freedom is statistical. If one were to add the likelihood of an (innocent) person being attacked by the police to the likelihood of an innocent person being attacked by criminals, the total likelihood of being a victim is a measure of ones lack of concrete freedom.

Of course, in any system, ones likelihood varies by whom one is, and what ones race, income, etc., is. Certainly an (innocent) person who is wealthy is more likely to be attacked by authorities than someone who is poor. An (innocent) person who is political is more likely to be attacked than one who is not. Especially today.

This is a measure of how free an innocent person is. Less attack = more freedom. For criminals, the reverse is true: the poorer and more criminal one is the more likely they are to be attacked by the police and by criminals. For criminals this is desirable. Criminals should be constantly afraid of attack. The merely poor should not.

With criminals, less attack = less freedom, since they cannot control themselves and their actions are tyrannical to everyone else. To create freedom one must constantly attack criminals.

When a state protects the white innocent and attacks the criminal it is doing what it is supposed to. That is creating law an order, and law and order are inseparable from hierarchy, and hierarchy is indistinguishable from inequality.

Civilization (or more properly order) is built on having someone always above and someone always below—someone always in and someone always out.

So it isn't a matter of equality. That is impossible and leads to societal decay. It is a matter of being a member of the in group. Also, because of the diversity of human populations, who is the criminal is not random, so equal outcome impossible, and therefore minorities equally voting for Republicans also impossible.

Now of course, if you are the one receiving end of the jackboot you do not perceive yourself to be free, even if you deserve the jackboot you are receiving. From your perspective the system is unjust. The fact that the systems preservation aligns against you does nothing to persuade you that there is something wrong with you—oh no, it persuades you that there is something wrong with it. Even if you are parasitical you will view the system, not yourself, as the problem, since parasites evolved for their own self-preservation, and you, being a parasite, what to preserve yourself.

So freedom is always the perception of being on the inside. This is perceptual freedom.

Conversely, anyone on the outside will perceive themselves to not be free. This means Jews, all intellectuals (since they are bullied), all criminals, all mentally ill people, all people who perceive themselves as victims, and all groups that can be emotionally propagandized into perceiving themselves as victims.

Democracy cultivates perceptual freedom through the cognitive trick of voting. You, having voted, feel responsible for your government. Since everyone else also voted you feel that they are oppressing you when they vote foolishly. This conceals the truth that democracy is always run for the benefit of elites. It directs your anger towards your neighbors and away from the people who are actually in charge. It allows them to conceal their influence. So perceptual freedom is also a democratic trick.

America has the worlds highest incarceration rate. This would indicate that America has the least concrete freedom, either through locking up people falsely, or having insane levels of crime, or both.

But notice that Americans seem to think they have the most freedom out of any society on Earth. Though cracks are appearing in the façade, they have perceptual freedom.

Intellectuals, being high IQ, can never really experience freedom, since they can see the arrangement of imperium in imperio as the façade that it really is. So they attack society as a kind of revenge for being the out-group. Most philosophy can be seen as an exercise in vengeance against playground bullies.

Thus intellectuals tend to be enemies of civilization, since they, being the out-group never experience freedom, and like a bullied child, if they cannot have it no one else can. The average person, being a cognitive miser, can have this, so he seeks ignorance and takes the blue pill.

So here is the perverse thought. What if the problem is that the Matrix is not convincing enough? Basically, what if the solution lies in creating a more convincing perceptual freedom? One that fools even intellectuals?

What if the problem is not the Cathedral, but the glitchy nature of its simulation?

In a patchwork people separate themselves by identity. The very existence of a political system that proclaimed itself "libertarian," "socialist" or whatever, draws like-minded people from all around and repels people who disagree. A sorting effect occurs. The patchwork becomes a series of in-groups.

So a patchwork, if every patch were democratic, would create the highest perceptual freedom. The great diversity of patches, combined with the voting mechanism, would exacerbate perceptual freedom to ultra-matrix style levels of supreme delusion!

Delusion in the sense of believing that one is free, believing that one is a participant in his government as a voter.

But this still requires a feedback mechanism. Glitchiness comes from the failure of the Cathedral to interact with the real world. How to overcome this? Well, the solution lies in the patch itself. Voting with your feet enforces a minimum amount of reality to effect the patch since local elites operating under the imperium in imperio nature of local patch democracy are still local. Their investment is tied up with a place, and that place, to give them power, must work.

So even patchwork democracy is better at delivering perceptual freedom, (and probably actual freedom) than the current system, since elites, being local, must care.

Now one may say, "but that's the way it is already." No. It is not. The trick would be to empower minorities, (in the sense of small groups), not majorities, and to put the small radical groups in charge of their patch. If this could be pulled off, it would serve as a transitional form of government going from democracy to monarchical/CEO patchwork.

Aphorisms 21

Power is always power over someone. By its nature, it is an unequal relationship. For everyone who wields power, there must be at least one who receives it. It is asymmetrical.

In a democracy where everyone had the right to vote there is an incentive to treat everyone as equals.

Now consider the supreme perversity of a power system that needs equality and you understand democracy.

Consider also the extreme totalitarianism of a power system that needs you to think that you and everyone else is equal.

Monarchy is rejected precisely because it is too honest. It admits the existence of power, and this appeals to the highly intelligent and honest, who cannot escape the realization that slavery to power is inescapable.

But it does not appeal to the less intelligent majority, who value comfortable delusions instead.

Thus, you have a contest between perceptual freedom vs. concrete freedom. That is, between delusion vs. order.

In the era of mass communication, mass-coordination is possible, and demotism inevitable, since the majority, being comprised of the less intelligent, will coordinate in favor of systems that only give them perceived freedom.

Consider the possibility that the problem with democracy is not its demotism, but its unconvincing nature—that the real solution is a more convincing Matrix.

Here's a sick thought; maybe the intelligent need perceptual freedom, (delusion) too.

How do you fool a genus into thinking he's free?

Aphorisms 20

To people who don't have original thoughts, everyone who has them appears to be weird.

"Weird," is the insult that polices you into being as brain dead as everyone else.

The function is to annihilate thought.

What it Takes to be a Neoreactionary

My evolution to neoreactionary thought was a long odyssey that involved extensive training, most of which I performed on myself.

First I had to be talked out of socialism by my libertarian uncle, who simply argued with me relentlessly until I lost every last argument for state interference in the economy—a position I held out of a burning rage at the "injustices" of inequality.

Then I had to take not one, but TWO classes in philosophy. The first was a class in symbolic logic, which ironically, did not teach me to be logical. The second was a class taught by a feminist professor of all things. That did teach me to be logical because of her relentless take down of all my arguments using her merciless technique of criticizing every logical fallacy that came out of my mouth. I learned in that class how to finally think straight. I also eventually learned that unprincipled exceptions do not make for the basis of a legitimate philosophy.

Then I was unjustly accused of being a racist by a socialist. This led me to investigate equality itself. I believed at the time that I could prove humans were equal. My studies proved that assertion incorrect.

Then I had to do extensive readings from libertarian sites like The Mises Institute.

That led me to the manosphere and to The Last Psychiatrist, and to Dalrock, which then led to the now defunct (very high quality) site Anarcho-Papist, and then to Nick Lands essay The Dark Enlightenment and to Unqualified Reservations, which I have now read most of.

So consider this. To become neoreactionary requires being talked out of every natural human impulse that you have. It also requires learning how to think straight (without fallacies). Most humans cannot think properly because fallacious reasoning and cognitive biases are hard coded into DNA.

So what have I gained from all this? Well, know that I know longer believe in equality I know longer have the pain of hating a world that I cannot change. In many ways I am more emotionally healthy now. It is my sincere belief that all power systems control people by giving them pain so they can be controlled / manipulated into serving the system. Progressive racialism gives you pain by making you rage against an original sin that can never be defeated (white privilege / systematic racism etc.). Christianity gives you guilt over your mistakes (sins) so that you keep coming back to the altar. Equality, as a doctrine, gives you pain over inequality, an "injustice" that can never be alleviated since it can never be solved. What better way to keep people voting / tithing / paying / supporting a power structure than by giving them psychological suffering that only the priest / social justice warrior / Democratic party can solve?

GIVE THEM PAIN. Then you can charge them to take it away, or at least make white self-haters vote the way you want them to.

Think about it. Any system that actually freed you from pain would go bankrupt from a lack of attendance or power. All surviving power structures survive precisely because they do not solve the problem they are supposed to. If they did they would become obsolete. They must not deliver on the promise of salvation / equality / whatever, to stay in business.

After all, equality could be achieved with eugenics by genetically enhancing the poor. Notice that this is the one thing that is forbidden by their ideology. Can't put the priest out of business now! Gots to get dat money and power.

So I've gained something, but what have I lost? Well, quite a few girls won't fuck you if you hold these political opinions. It also isolates you socially. What good is being woke if you can never share what you know with the people who surround you? I am always keeping my mouth shut these days, and I have alienated people by saying even watered down versions of my viewpoint.

So would I do it again? Would I trade a gain of emotional serenity for a loss of social isolation, lost booty calls, and never ending silence?

FUCK NO!

In fact if I had a time machine I would say to my past self, "ignore your fucking uncle and remain a socialist. You'll get more pussy that way, and you'll have more friends."

Sincerely,

Axel.

Commenting on Dark Reformation

I posted this on Dark Reformations blog in part 6. I'm reposting it here.


I apologize in advance if anything I am about to say is offensive.

I hate to say anything critical to a writer who takes the time out of his day to learn the dark enlightenment and write such a long and detailed summary of Moldbugs ideas. You have correctly summarized his writings. But I feel that in the effort to condense so much detail into a short space it come across as crass, disjointed, and a little manic. You don't really smoothly transition between paragraphs at all. But it is a valiant effort.

Are you an INTJ? Your ability to synthesize vast quantities of information sounds like it.

Of course personal comments are irrelevant so here is my critique of your ideas.

You diagnose Progressivism as the root cause of all problems. Moldbug himself may have formulated (or implied) this himself and then contradicted himself by saying that culture is downstream from power. If culture is downstream from power then progressivism cannot be the cause of decay—it can only be a symptom or an outcome. The cause must be democracy.

Of course you know this.

It is a common mistake in NRx for newcomers to focus on refuting progressivism. This is because democracy has trained all of us to think our opinions matter because we are all potentially voters (and as you have said it is a mind control system). It is hard to break yourself of that habit.

The central realization is that ideology is the outcome of power, and not, as the left-wing worldview has it, power the outcome of ideology. I think you know this since you reference de Jouvenel.

Nonetheless you focus (in terms of sheer volumes of words) on ideology—the effect, rather than the cause.

Basically what I am saying is that although you know power produces ideology your focus on ideology gives the impression that you have not fully digested this fact and realized what is means. Moldbug was escaping progressivism and had to talk himself out of it. So he spends most of his time refuting the left and is then remarkably short on building his own ideas. You have replicated this mistake. You have focused on refuting the left and given only (from what I can tell) two cursory ideas for dealing with the problem; 'New Arabia' and 'Competent Secure authority.'

So basically it is this; what neoreaction needs is building new ideas and not criticizing left-wing ideas. We need to be on the offensive and not the defensive. We need to generate new thoughts and not just react against the left-wing thesis.

So many great right-wing thinkers (F.A Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Lew Rockwell, Murry Rothbard, etc.) are short on creation and long on criticism. I see you falling into this pattern. We value your input. But we value NEW stuff even more. We need original concepts and we welcome you to give us your thoughts in as detailed a manner as possible.

This is also what I am trying to do and I welcome you to join me and give me your feedback.

My website is here:

Aphorisms 19

If racism leads to Hitler then equality leads to Stalin.

Stalin killed more people.

Aphorisms 18

True friends better than many.

With women? Bigger balls beats longer shaft.